I wonder if this will impact the 50% creationist believers in the US...

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
Apparently this early humanoid walked on 4 legs in trees and 2 legs on ground. Supposed to be the "missing link".

http://topnews.us/content/27493-scientists-unveil-fossils-44-million-year-old-pre-human-ancestor

An international team of researchers Thursday unveiled the fossils from 4.4 million-year-old 'hominid' - comprising pre-human species and their kin - unearthed in the Awash region of Ethiopia in the beginning of 1994.

The researchers, led by paleoanthropologist Tim White at the University of California, Berkeley, said that the extensive fossil trove - comprising 36 males, females and a young of an ancient prehuman species called Ardipithecus ramidus - reveals that human predecessors were more modern than what the scholars had presumed till now.

The highlight of these remains is the skeleton of a female found to be at least a million years older than the iconic skeleton of Lucy, the primitive female figure that has thus far been considered ancestor of the human species.

The 4-foot-tall female, nicknamed 'Ardi', who has become the best known human forebear, is actually a distant cousin of Lucy's line, Australopithecus afarensis.

Saying that the 'Ardi' discovery further widens the evolutionary gap that separates humankind from apes and chimpanzees, White remarked: "Ardi is not a chimp. It's not a human. It's what we used to be. It gives us a new perspective on our origins. We opened a time capsule from a time and place that we knew nothing about."

Further, White also added that though Ardi is not the last common ancestor, "it's the closest we've come to the last common ancestor."
 

Wotan31

macrumors 6502
Jun 5, 2008
491
0
Re: I wonder if this will impact the 50% creationist believers in the US...

Yes, it will. About as much as the Bible impacts the non-creationist believers in the US. Just saying.
 

yg17

macrumors G5
Aug 1, 2004
14,888
2,480
St. Louis, MO
Re: I wonder if this will impact the 50% creationist believers in the US...

Yes, it will. About as much as the Bible impacts the non-creationist believers in the US. Just saying.
The difference is that this discovery is based on facts. The bible isn't.
 

Wotan31

macrumors 6502
Jun 5, 2008
491
0
The difference is that this discovery is based on facts. The bible isn't.
And what facts are those? Please enlighten us, wise one. Oh right. You think that dead monkey is your great great great grandfather. How cute.
 

.Andy

macrumors 68030
Jul 18, 2004
2,946
583
The Mergui Archipelago
And what facts are those? Please enlighten us, wise one. Oh right. You think that dead monkey is your great great great grandfather. How cute.
Is this how evolution works?

Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. anyone who says otherwise is either narrow-minded or has an agenda.
Or another way to put it is religion is unnecessary. It can be yielded at whim to explain things in an every narrowing gap as scientific knowledge increases. Or it can exist as the supernatural.
 

yg17

macrumors G5
Aug 1, 2004
14,888
2,480
St. Louis, MO
Is this how evolution works?
Posts like his prove evolution. Some people have evolved past monkeys enough to put letters together to form words, but haven't evolved enough to put those words together to form a rational thought.
 

Wotan31

macrumors 6502
Jun 5, 2008
491
0
Posts like his prove evolution. Some people have evolved past monkeys enough to put letters together to form words, but haven't evolved enough to put those words together to form a rational thought.
And posts like yours prove that darwin was wrong. You'd think the lower end of the gene pool would weed itself out, but nope, they just keep popping up.
 

gibbz

macrumors 68030
May 31, 2007
2,691
91
Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. anyone who says otherwise is either narrow-minded or has an agenda.
+1.

I grew up with a religious upbringing and yet I am a scientist.

I have always viewed science as man's attempt to explain the physical world in terms that we all understand. That doesn't mean that because science defines something that it can't also be attributable to God. It just means that we have defined terms within the scope of our own understanding, which is very limited in the grand scheme of things.

I don't understand religious folks who hate science or science folks who hate religion. Neither precludes the other.
 

.Andy

macrumors 68030
Jul 18, 2004
2,946
583
The Mergui Archipelago
And posts like yours prove that darwin was wrong. You'd think the lower end of the gene pool would weed itself out, but nope, they just keep popping up.
Although a wonderfully delivered slight, intelligence doesn't really have that much to do with reproductive ability. So again you're really showing a misunderstanding of evolution.
 

Lord Blackadder

macrumors G5
May 7, 2004
13,521
2,557
Sod off
Or another way to put it is religion is unnecessary. It can be yielded at whim to explain things in an every narrowing gap as scientific knowledge increases. Or it can exist as the supernatural.
Science will never be able to explain everything, and from the dawn of humanity people have used a variety of methods to try and understand the world around them and why things happen the way they do. The two great sources of "truth" have always been the gaining of empirical knowledge and belief in the supernatural.

I'm convinced this will never change for the majority of humanity. We will never become a planet of atheists/humanists, regardless of the high status science has in the modern world, just as we will never be a planet of believers. Almost everyone falls somewhere in between.

Science has never suggested that God does not exist (indeed it can neither prove nor disprove the existence of the supernatural), while any religion that dismisses science or rejects scientific inquiry is overly dogmatic.

Unfortunately dogmatism is endemic.

intelligence doesn't really have that much to do with reproductive ability.
Something proven time and time again I'm afraid.
 

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,365
UK
Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. anyone who says otherwise is either narrow-minded or has an agenda.
Exactly.

If I were the creator of the universe I wouldn't create all the animals and their changes manually - I'd setup an algorithm to do it for me, as its far less work.

Just because evolution exists isn't proof that god doesn't give life a helping hand occasionally, or that god didn't initially create life.
 

.Andy

macrumors 68030
Jul 18, 2004
2,946
583
The Mergui Archipelago
The two great sources of "truth" have always been the gaining of empirical knowledge and belief in the supernatural.
Is belief in the supernatural really searching for or providing truth?

Science has never suggested that God does not exists
Depends on how you look at it. Science has most definitely proven that the majority of the fantastic claims attributed to the christian god in the bible are completely bunk. It's proven that the claims attributable to the greek gods are complete bunk. It's proven that the claims made by the aboriginal supernatural giant snakes are complete bunk. And on and on. Science is forever releasing us from the misguided explanations of the supernatural. Evoking the supernatural at any stage just doesn't make any sense nor is it required for anything. It's an arbitrary adjunct.

If I were the creator of the universe I wouldn't create all the animals and their changes manually - I'd setup an algorithm to do it for me, as its far less work.
But evoking the supernatural here (in the guise of a Judeo-Christian god nonetheless) is completely unnecessary. Why does some supernatural entity need to have made the algorithm. We have shown that the algorithm works and arises without any supernatural input. It's adding a completely unnecessary and unprecedented level of complexity to a problem with a simple solution.

Just because evolution exists isn't proof that god doesn't give life a helping hand occasionally, or that god didn't initially create life.
An interventionist god giving life "a helping hand" is something that can be tested and detected scientifically. And that god created life is also a scientific claim. One that we have pretty strong scientific evidence to the contrary. And our understanding of abiogenesis is increasing every single day. To evoke god in this gap is very shaky ground.
 

Lord Blackadder

macrumors G5
May 7, 2004
13,521
2,557
Sod off
Is belief in the supernatural really searching for or providing truth?
I think it does for believers, it provides a truth. Finding answers through religious means is very satisfying for billions of people and does not necessarily have to involve repudiating scientific truth (though there are plenty of examples of that happening, some harmless enough, others catastrophic).

Depends on how you look at it.
Very much so. If you take the Bible as a literal truth, I agree with you that it is not an accurate description of events. It is a combination of oral history and myth.

Science is forever releasing us from the misguided explanations of the supernatural. Evoking the supernatural at any stage just doesn't make any sense nor is it required for anything. It's an arbitrary adjunct.
There is a kernel of truth in what you say, but I think you take it too far for most people. If it works for you, that's fine, but most people want to believe in the supernatural in some form, and you can interpret that as either an undesirable characteristic that science "releases" us from, or something more closely tied with humanity itself.

Science will never replace humanity's desire for the spiritual, just as history has taught us that religion without any science (or at least secularism) can breed unnecessary suffering and repression. I fully respect your position and even agree with most of your criticisms of religion, but (and I doubt I'm telling you anything new here), I think that relatively few people are going to see things unreservedly your way on this.
 

.Andy

macrumors 68030
Jul 18, 2004
2,946
583
The Mergui Archipelago
I think it does for believers, it provides a truth. Finding answers through religious means is very satisfying for billions of people
Perhaps instead of "truth" a better description would be a palatable, satisfying, and attractive explanation?

and does not necessarily have to involve repudiating scientific truth.
No it doesn't. But that doesn't validate it as the provider of any truth or something that can be piggybacked onto established scientific facts (such as evolution above).

If it works for you, that's fine, but most people want to believe in the supernatural in some form, and you can interpret that as either an undesirable characteristic that science "releases" us from, or something more closely tied with humanity itself.
But again because people want something or like something or find something comforting by no means validates it. It has to stand on it's own merit - especially if it is making the most extraordinary claims.

Science will never replace humanity's desire for the spiritual, just as history has taught us that religion without any science (or at least secularism) can breed unnecessary suffering and repression.
But spiritualism and religion aren't mutually inclusive. One can still be spiritual without being religious. Taking wonder of science is a very valid spiritual experience.
 

Queso

Suspended
Mar 4, 2006
11,832
7
This won't convince anyone. They'll just change the script so that the missing link is elsewhere.
 

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,365
UK
But evoking the supernatural here (in the guise of a Judeo-Christian god nonetheless) is completely unnecessary. Why does some supernatural entity need to have made the algorithm. We have shown that the algorithm works and arises without any supernatural input. It's adding a completely unnecessary and unprecedented level of complexity to a problem with a simple solution.


An interventionist god giving life "a helping hand" is something that can be tested and detected scientifically. And that god created life is also a scientific claim. One that we have pretty strong scientific evidence to the contrary. And our understanding of abiogenesis is increasing every single day. To evoke god in this gap is very shaky ground.
While these may well be accepted scientific theory these days, they aren't directly related to belief in evolution.
 

.Andy

macrumors 68030
Jul 18, 2004
2,946
583
The Mergui Archipelago
While these may well be accepted scientific theory these days, they aren't directly related to belief in evolution.
I was commenting on the reasoning given for science and religion not being mutually exclusive. By "exactly" I thought you were replying and building on Lord Blackadder's post. I was not commenting on evolution exclusively.
 

Shivetya

macrumors 68000
Jan 16, 2008
1,543
223
And what facts are those? Please enlighten us, wise one. Oh right. You think that dead monkey is your great great great grandfather. How cute.
Don't worry, they will trot out another dead monkey and so on and so on...


it never ends... that and someone posting a thread as a means to bash Christians on MacRumors.

Its fun watching people filled with so much angst lash out all the time :p
 

.Andy

macrumors 68030
Jul 18, 2004
2,946
583
The Mergui Archipelago
Don't worry, they will trot out another dead monkey and so on and so on...


it never ends... that and someone posting a thread as a means to bash Christians on MacRumors.

Its fun watching people filled with so much angst lash out all the time :p
Please nobody reply to this. If you look at Shivetya's posting history he just drops in similar posts time and time again with no interest in a discussion.